One thing I like about Forrest is that it's not only a static site generation engine, but it's capable of serving the site live. Changes are instantaneous, bandwith is perserved, and dynamic content can be employed.
IMHO every Apache project that produces something it can use for itself *should* actually use it, like HTTPD does. This gives the team something to work collectively on, and a base that keeps the project adherent to actual needs.
IOW, I would like to see the Forrest website served of a live Forrest instance.
To do this, even before talking about logistics and permissions, we have to be sure that it's not going to cause problems, even in high load, and be able to administer it.
Before we can seriously start to consider using it live, we should at least have the following:
1 - knowledge of the memory it's going to need and use 2 - have no known memory leakage (to be tested) 3 - have caching turned on 4 - know what to do when upgrading the version 5 - decide where it's going to get the site from 6 - other?
After that, it would be beneficial to be able to serve multiple sites on a single Forrest instance, so that we can have other projects join and have their site served.
Thoughts, comments, opinions?
--
Nicola Ken Barozzi [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- verba volant, scripta manent -
(discussions get forgotten, just code remains)
---------------------------------------------------------------------